DATE OF FILING : 07.02.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 24.04.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30.01.2015.
Sri Ashim Roy,
son of late Prabhat Kumar Roy,
resident of 2/1, Dharmatala Lane, P.O. Howrah, P.S. Shibpur,
District Howrah…...………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.
1. Dell India Pvt. Ltd.,
Having its registered office at
Divyasree Greens ( ground floor ),
12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hobli,
Bangalore South,
Karnataka. ……………….…………………………………OPPOSITE PARTY.
2. Balaji Solutions Ltd.,
4, Ganesh Chandra Avenue,
Kolkata 700 013. ……………………………..……Proforma OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
- Complainant, Ashim Roy, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to replace the desk top in question or to refund the purchase price of the desk top, being Rs.71,500/- along with statutory interest, to refund Rs. 1,250/- paid towards the repairing job, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Complainant bought one desk top on payment of Rs. 71,500/- on 05.11.2012 from proforma o.p. duly manufactured by o.p. no. 1 vide Annexure tax invoice cum delivery challan. The warranty period was for one year. But on 10.9.2013, the Speakers and OST of the desk top stopped working. So the complainant made calls to the customer care of the o.p. no. 1 and he was advised to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,250/- for the repairing purpose even in spite of the fact that the defect arose within the warranty period. Complainant became surprised and again made calls on 14.9.2013. But the customer care representative strictly told him that without depositing Rs. 1,250/-, complainant would not get any service from o.p. no. 1. So under compulsion, complainant deposited the same in the account of o.p. no. 1 vide Annexure Deposit slip. But it is so unfortunate that no service was provided by o.p. no. 1 and with utter dissatisfaction complainant sent a notice on 8.1.2014 through e. mail to o.p. no. 1. Still o.p. no. 1 remained absolutely silent over the issue and the grievance of the complainant persisted. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, he filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayers.
- Notices were served. But they never appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case was heard ex parte.
- Two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint and its annexures and noted its contents. Even after making the full payment of Rs. 71,500/-, complainant could not utilize the set in a proper way. He has been deprived of using the set. The overall attitude of o.p. no. 1 is nothing but harassing which certainly caused severe mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss to the complainant. O.P. no. 1 should have remembered that the success of their business totally depends upon the customer satisfaction. No post sale service has been given by the o.p. no. 1 in proper time. How they can possess such a daring attitude towards the customer. Moreover, the o.p. no. 1 and proforma o.p. have not cared to appear before the Forum even after receiving summons. It is a fact that proforma o.p. has received the entire purchase price. So they cannot shrug off their liability in this regard. But no W/V has been filed by them which clearly shows that they have nothing to put forward in their favour. And the complaint petition remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. And we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. O.ps. have miserably failed to keep promise which certainly amounts to deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice on their part which should not be allowed to be perpetuated for an indefinite period. And we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant should be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 64 of 2014 ( HDF 64 of 2014 ) be allowed ex parte with costs against the O.Ps.
That the O.Ps. are directed to pay Rs. 71,500/-, as purchase price of the desk top , to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
That they are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs within 30 days from the date of this order.
That the o.ps. are further directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 78,500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., the aforesaid amount shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum till full realization. The complainant is also directed to return the desk top lying in his custody after receiving the decreetal amount.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
